Oracle Could Still Make ZFS A First-Class Upstream Linux File-System

[oiaohm]

This is all bullshit and FUD. The code doesn't pollute your OS licence, that is absurd. FreeBSD gets by just fine using it without turning the entire kernel to a CDDL licence.

Freebsd kernel license does not block being stomped all over. So the include parts of freebsd macros in CDDL files do not cause legal issues because you can allow CDDL to become the license in that file.

CDDL is file limited. GPL and CDDL cannot be mixed in the same file. Its not just FSF that says this. Software Freedom Law Center

http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl.html

If you don't like this law firm group I can just keep on quoting others that repeatably give the same answer after to doing proper assessment of GPL and CDDL. Also this has changed in the USA since GPL was declared contract so removing consumer law protections.

Debian did not stop from include ZFS because FSF told them to. It because Debian got 8 legal reviews from 8 different legal firms that gave exactly the same answer of incompatible just with variations in how bad.

Basically this is lets blame FSF instead of accepting there is a real problem here.

Oracle has one of the largest legal teams ever created and "sue everyone" is the company motto. They already DID close the source for OpenSolaris and ZFS by changing it's licence, they HAD to do that because they themselves were not in compliance with the CDDL with the release of Solaris 11. They can not release binaries without source.. they had to re-licence and CDDL only has an option to accept new versions, it's not mandatory. If they could have closed OpenSolaris, they would have. Joyent is owned by Samsung... dunt ja thunk Oracle lawyers would roll up and want them to pay for an Illumos licence if they could just like Caldera and SCO did to Chrysler and Autozone for claiming ownership of Linux?

CDDL the new version allowing oracle to-do what ever would have to be released before they shipped anything. Just because Oracle has a big legal team does not mean they are the smartest all the time. Basically they goofed up closing up Solaris 11 does not mean they lost the rights to-do just that. Next time they attempt they should get it right.. Caldera and SCO claiming ownership over Linux was baseless. Orcale over CDDL is not baseless.

Bit in what you wrote Orcale had to release code because they were not in compliance with CDDL at the time they did the action. Fixed simply if they had released a new version of CDDL saying oracle is allowed to close source directly then does exactly that.

Yes you are right section 4.2 would allow people to keep a project going under CDDL version 1.0 or 1.1 if Orcale release a CDDL version 1.2. One problem is due to 4.1 clause Oracle could take any code fixes in the CDDL 1.0, 1.1 license stuff and merge into what ever CDDL version 1.2 is because of clause 3.1 in version 1.0 and 1.1 cddl. This is exactly what happen with openoffice vs libreoffice. So any patch in openoffice of interest can be ported to libreoffice but any patch of interest in LibreOffice cannot be ported back to openoffice.

Orcale can legally take everything that is OpenZFS and release it under a different license and there is absolutely nothing you could legally do about it as long as they do Orcale by releasing a new CDDL version. Orcale has goofed that step in the past.

The case you need to read it the recent case that said GPL is a contract in the USA. This case said that GPL section 0 is enforceable. Section 0 need to be not enforceable for CDDL compatibility in the USA.

The reality is now CDDL and GPL without question are not compatible every legal arguement to restrict GPL terms were rejected in the case declaring GPL under contract law without restrictions from other laws.

"Canonical, Ltd. was incorporated on the Isle of Man"
This is a fact that is forgotten. Debian country of registration is the USA so has to play by USA laws. Canonical behind Ubuntu is Isle of Man. So of course Canonical don't have to worry as much about the conflict they are legally not in a jurisdiction that has a problem. Of course Canonical customers are another matter. Ubuntu stated they did not have a legal problem with shipping ZFS they did not say their customers would be in the same lucky location.

What is legal on one country may be totally illegal in another. Yes its important to remember FSF gives out a lot of stuff based on German and Usa rulings.

[k1e0x]

By law it turns out Macros in header files are classed as inserting code not protected as interface. So to fully exploit features of Linux kernel or any kernel not licensed under CDDL that with derivative work clauses with a driver written under CDDL you are stuffed.



Those proprietary drivers exist because Oracle/Sun uses 4.1 of CDDL.

• 4.1. New Versions.
  
  Sun Microsystems, Inc. is the initial license steward and may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Except as provided in Section 4.3, no one other than the license steward has the right to modify this License.

That is from 1.0 Of course oracle has updated that in 1.1 to have Oracle instead of Sun Microsystems.

So here closed source developers we will give you a SDK under X special sub version of CDDL that says you don't have to obey 3.1 and we give you that if you let us vet your driver.


All those parties have agreed to 4.1 by using CDDL. So Oracle could say that the new version of CDDL is GPL and that would be instantly able to re-license the complete thing. Basically you have not read the CDDL license using it you have given absolute control of License to Sun at first then Oracle.

So legally over my dead body statements with CDDL would be worth nothing because the power to re-license has already been given.

GPL you could remove the or latter clause so limiting FSF control.

Remember CDDL is design that Sun could change their mind like release a new version of CDDL that allowed them to take all CDDL works closed source.

So a single stroke of a pen in Oracle legal department could end the incompatibilities between CDDL and GPL also a single stroke of a pen in Oracle could allow them to take something under CDDL license make it closed source and extend it and there is nothing those who worked on the CDDL project could do anything about it.

So like it or not almost all the work on OpenZFS basically owns to Oracle as they have absolute control over how it licensed. Yes standing behind CDDL for patent protection comes at a hell of a price.

This is all bullshit and FUD. The code doesn't pollute your OS licence, that is absurd. FreeBSD gets by just fine using it without turning the entire kernel to a CDDL licence. Jesus christ.. it's total fear mongering. GPL is the viral code, not CDDL because of the derivative works clause. CDDL is probably compatible with GPL also, the only people who are saying it isn't is FSF and the GNU who are also propagating the aforementioned conspiracy theory. Debian was going to ship it till the FSF stopped them. Ubuntu ignored the FSF and DID ship it and a few other Linux distros ship it as well and almost all of them ship it in binary module form. Again defining the Solaris Portability Layer and ZFS as a works of "Linux" is the real insanity here.. no court would support that claim. Not everyone likes the GPL or would even want to use it because of that. I'm in that camp too, I think it's a determent to free software. Free should mean free, the BSD's get this right.. the MPL's and CDDL's (weak copyleft) come close.

Nice theory with your cherry picking but.. you are wrong.

4.2. Effect of New Versions.

You may always continue to use, distribute or otherwise make the
Covered Software available under the terms of the version of the
License under which You originally received the Covered Software.

Oracle has one of the largest legal teams ever created and "sue everyone" is the company motto. They already DID close the source for OpenSolaris and ZFS by changing it's licence, they HAD to do that because they themselves were not in compliance with the CDDL with the release of Solaris 11. They can not release binaries without source.. they had to re-licence and CDDL only has an option to accept new versions, it's not mandatory. If they could have closed OpenSolaris, they would have. Joyent is owned by Samsung... dunt ja thunk Oracle lawyers would roll up and want them to pay for an Illumos licence if they could just like Caldera and SCO did to Chrysler and Autozone for claiming ownership of Linux?

Your not seeing the real picture here. This is a power play by Oracle against Illumos and OpenZFS because.............. they have no none nada control over OpenZFS.

[oiaohm]

Or they could just offer it under multiple licenses.

Multiple Licenses still require fixing CDDL section 3.1 so it does not cause issues in different companies legal departments. Careful legal departments like it written clear that something is allowed.

[TheBlackCat]

It would be an odd situation if Oracle relicensed to the GPL itself because Oracle's version of ZFS would then definitely be rejected by all non-Linux OSes that want to avoid that. If OpenZFS follows suit and switched to the GPL to pull in Oracle code, then OpenZFS would need to be forked to maintain a CDDL version which will still have no option to relicense even if that were desired. Those that want OpenZFS features on Linux will still need to patch their kernels with the CDDL version which can't include code from either the GPL'd Oracle Solaris version or from Linux.

So switching to the GPL doesn't really do much to change the present situation. There would still be two separate versions of ZFS that can't borrow from one another. All it would do is allow putting Oracle's ZFS into Linux, assuming anybody wants that.

Ideally Oracle would chose a nonviral GPL-compatible license that's palatable to everyone presently using CDDL... but yeah fat chance of anything happening at all.

Or they could just offer it under multiple licenses.

[oiaohm]

It would be an odd situation if Oracle relicensed to the GPL itself because Oracle's version of ZFS would then definitely be rejected by all non-Linux OSes that want to avoid that. If OpenZFS follows suit and switched to the GPL to pull in Oracle code, then OpenZFS would need to be forked to maintain a CDDL version which will still have no option to relicense even if that were desired. Those that want OpenZFS features on Linux will still need to patch their kernels with the CDDL version which can't include code from either the GPL'd Oracle Solaris version or from Linux.

Depends how Oracle re-licensed to GPL. If Oracle stated that GPL was the next version of CDDL fork to maintain CDDL comes next to impossible.
4.2. Effect of New Versions.
Is a good read. So what happens is you would face a libreoffice vs openoffice fork. This clause is forwards portable so someone forks and releases under the new version of CDDL no matter what it is you have no way back.

https://oss.oracle.com/licenses/CDDL+GPL-1.1

ormaaj this here is the o my god problem. If this hybrid is fixed so it can in fact work for Linux if made CDDL 1.2. So the threat of Oracle possible stroke of pen converting to GPL is not just theory you can see Oracle legal department pondering with the CDL+GPL-.1.1 license.

Something to remember here does Oracle in fact make any money from those other operating systems?

I would say Oracle doing a non-viral license is unlikely. But Oracle releasing a new version of CDDL that turns it into GPL is on the cards. Question is does oracle have anything that is license under CDDL they need to remain CDDL for them to make profit? CDDL being in Oracles hands put you in a very horible location if CDDL has no profit gain to Oracle any more and is only a hindrance so conversion to some other license comes likely.

[ormaaj]

It would be an odd situation if Oracle relicensed to the GPL itself because Oracle's version of ZFS would then definitely be rejected by all non-Linux OSes that want to avoid that. If OpenZFS follows suit and switched to the GPL to pull in Oracle code, then OpenZFS would need to be forked to maintain a CDDL version which will still have no option to relicense even if that were desired. Those that want OpenZFS features on Linux will still need to patch their kernels with the CDDL version which can't include code from either the GPL'd Oracle Solaris version or from Linux.

So switching to the GPL doesn't really do much to change the present situation. There would still be two separate versions of ZFS that can't borrow from one another. All it would do is allow putting Oracle's ZFS into Linux, assuming anybody wants that.

Ideally Oracle would chose a nonviral GPL-compatible license that's palatable to everyone presently using CDDL... but yeah fat chance of anything happening at all.

[oiaohm]

Ya, it's file based. I don't understand why you'd want to do that.. the code compiles now under CDDL so I'm not sure what foreign code you'd want to add.

By law it turns out Macros in header files are classed as inserting code not protected as interface. So to fully exploit features of Linux kernel or any kernel not licensed under CDDL that with derivative work clauses with a driver written under CDDL you are stuffed.

I'm not talking about GPL drivers. I'm talking about proprietary scsi, network and video drivers in Solaris. Solaris was a heavy proprietary system, it's a miracle they were able to open source it at all. They needed to keep those drivers as what would OpenSolaris look like if you couldn't use it on Sun hardware. lol. GPL users know all about the problems with proprietary graphics drivers in kernel imagine if half your hardware was like that. So you can think that it was a conspiracy theory.. ~maybe~ it's true but.. this makes more sense. Sun sold really expensive hardware, they didn't care if you put Linux on it any more than IBM does.

Those proprietary drivers exist because Oracle/Sun uses 4.1 of CDDL.

• 4.1. New Versions.
  
  Sun Microsystems, Inc. is the initial license steward and may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Except as provided in Section 4.3, no one other than the license steward has the right to modify this License.

That is from 1.0 Of course oracle has updated that in 1.1 to have Oracle instead of Sun Microsystems.

So here closed source developers we will give you a SDK under X special sub version of CDDL that says you don't have to obey 3.1 and we give you that if you let us vet your driver.

No they really don't because they don't own the copyright for quite a bit of the OpenZFS code. If you look at the code you'll see copyright statements from Sun, Oracle, Delphix, Joyent, Datto, Nextentra and lots of individuals. They would all have to agree to relicence with Oracle and being that many of them are former Sun employees.. well.. you can imagine some over my dead body statements..

All those parties have agreed to 4.1 by using CDDL. So Oracle could say that the new version of CDDL is GPL and that would be instantly able to re-license the complete thing. Basically you have not read the CDDL license using it you have given absolute control of License to Sun at first then Oracle.

So legally over my dead body statements with CDDL would be worth nothing because the power to re-license has already been given.

GPL you could remove the or latter clause so limiting FSF control.

Remember CDDL is design that Sun could change their mind like release a new version of CDDL that allowed them to take all CDDL works closed source.

So a single stroke of a pen in Oracle legal department could end the incompatibilities between CDDL and GPL also a single stroke of a pen in Oracle could allow them to take something under CDDL license make it closed source and extend it and there is nothing those who worked on the CDDL project could do anything about it.

So like it or not almost all the work on OpenZFS basically owns to Oracle as they have absolute control over how it licensed. Yes standing behind CDDL for patent protection comes at a hell of a price.

[k1e0x]

CDDL is not compatible with proprietary code in a lot of cases due to the same reason it not compatible with GPL or MPL. MPL v1.1 contains a key clause stripped from CDDL.


Section 3.1 in every version of CDDL forbids mixing as it it states you can only use the terms of CDDL.

Mind you Oracle could use section 4.1 to release a new version of CDDL that has the 3.1 clause altered.

If you take some source code MIT licensed and put it inside a CDDL file by CDDL 3.1 it has to come CDDL. Under GPL/MPL it possible to tag that section as MIT license using the derivative work clauses that it was not a derivative work so not GPL/MPL.

Ya, it's file based. I don't understand why you'd want to do that.. the code compiles now under CDDL so I'm not sure what foreign code you'd want to add.

This is bogus. Before CDDL ie before 2004 there were such thing as GPL source code drivers for Solaris. CDDL cause 3.1 saw those disappear as well once you were including CDDL licensed header files.

I'm not talking about GPL drivers. I'm talking about proprietary scsi, network and video drivers in Solaris. Solaris was a heavy proprietary system, it's a miracle they were able to open source it at all. They needed to keep those drivers as what would OpenSolaris look like if you couldn't use it on Sun hardware. lol. GPL users know all about the problems with proprietary graphics drivers in kernel imagine if half your hardware was like that. So you can think that it was a conspiracy theory.. ~maybe~ it's true but.. this makes more sense. Sun sold really expensive hardware, they didn't care if you put Linux on it any more than IBM does.

Oracle does have the rights to fix CDDL no one else does.

No they really don't because they don't own the copyright for quite a bit of the OpenZFS code. If you look at the code you'll see copyright statements from Sun, Oracle, Delphix, Joyent, Datto, Nextentra and lots of individuals. They would all have to agree to relicence with Oracle and being that many of them are former Sun employees.. well.. you can imagine some over my dead body statements..

And.. you know the point is.. licence incompatibility discussions are really painful to the open source movement.. the enemy is proprietary code, hidden secret potentially dangerous code.. not each other. You think the CDDL is flawed, I think the GPL is flawed.. but it's all open.. and thats good.

[oiaohm]

"insanely bound"? I like the CDDL. File based copy left that's compatible with proprietary code. It's basically MPL, whats not to like?

CDDL is not compatible with proprietary code in a lot of cases due to the same reason it not compatible with GPL or MPL. MPL v1.1 contains a key clause stripped from CDDL.

I think your wrong as the entire point of the CDDL is it can be combined with other licences.

Section 3.1 in every version of CDDL forbids mixing as it it states you can only use the terms of CDDL.

Mind you Oracle could use section 4.1 to release a new version of CDDL that has the 3.1 clause altered.

If you take some source code MIT licensed and put it inside a CDDL file by CDDL 3.1 it has to come CDDL. Under GPL/MPL it possible to tag that section as MIT license using the derivative work clauses that it was not a derivative work so not GPL/MPL.

It's also silly to to claim ZFS is a derivative work of Linux when it's clearly an Illumos technology.

That is the big problem. ZFS is design using Illumos/solaris kernel. Linux kernel is not that. So you have duplicated functionality and not proper integration with memory management and other things.

<b>They could NEVER have used the GPL for Solaris.</b>
This is bogus. Before CDDL ie before 2004 there were such thing as GPL source code drivers for Solaris. CDDL cause 3.1 saw those disappear as well once you were including CDDL licensed header files.

Derivative work clause if CDDL had it a CDDL driver on Linux could use the internal Linux subsystem parts as long as it kept those parts optional.

Please note MPL v1.1 that CDDL is based on contains the Derivative works clauses so MPLv 1.1 can be used in Multi Licensing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing

CDDL cannot be used in Multi-licensing without causing legal trouble in some countries because it missing clauses you need to-do it.

It would not take much of a revision to fix CDDL so it only as bad as MPLv 1.1.

CDDL is gutted MPLv 1.1 removing some very critical bits. Oracle does have the rights to fix CDDL no one else does.

[k1e0x]

http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page

You will find that the Linux version of OpenZFS is of "zfs on Linux:

https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/blob/master/COPYRIGHT

Zfs on Linux still uses CDDL so is still protected by the Oracle Patent deal with Netapp. So they have not been standing on their own two feet to know what Netapp feeling is.

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/...zfs-and-linux/

Its not Stallman any legal assessment finds a problem. CDDL is very clear that you cannot multi-license due to the "only under the terms of this License" Clauses. Its possible to have a GPL/MIT work where both licenses apply. You cannot joint license CDDL work.

This results in legal problem is that zfs on Linux is required to carry around lot of duplication to what mainline Linux kernel provides.

Thinking the core code of ZFS been OpenZFS or Orcale ZFS is legally owned by Oracle the only party who can re-license from CDDL to something GPL compatible is Oracle. Oracle can only re-license if its not going to upset NetApp.

Please note when I say re-license I mean re-license as in the code base before re-license is CDDL after its no longer CDDL but some other license. The true copyright owner/s is legally allowed to re-license. With GPL its possible to Joint license while you migrate away from GPL if you need to.

The reality is Oracle ZFS would have to re-license before OpenZFS developers could start a re-license process.

Yes OpenZFS has more features of Oracle ZFS its also insanely bound to CDDL and they have no way to free themselves until Oracle moves.

"insanely bound"? I like the CDDL. File based copy left that's compatible with proprietary code. It's basically MPL, whats not to like? I think your wrong as the entire point of the CDDL is it can be combined with other licences. That's why Sun created it. The legal issue is derivative works and the GPL not allowing such. Or better yet the insane concept that the GPL has to absorb all software on earth and every piece of code in Linux is a derivative works of Linux. (This is why you see ZFS in every OS *except* Linux.. the GPL is the issue not the CDDL) It's also silly to to claim ZFS is a derivative work of Linux when it's clearly an Illumos technology. It can't run without the "Solaris Porting Layer" SPL. "Only under the terms of this licence" also applies to the files in OpenZFS code. Not anything else.

I don't know anything about the patents with Netapp but if Stallman can make an exception, he should do so before Oracle decides to follow through. If you want ZFS in Linux, you definitely want OpenZFS that is maintained by a large number of the people that developed it at Sun (Matt Ahrens, Adam Leventhal, George Wilson etc.)

Oracle also doesn't have full copyright to OpenZFS. I think that blog post is wrong.. Oracle doesn't *make* an open source version of ZFS. They have no control over OpenZFS.

Also on that blog post

We believe Sun was aware when drafting CDDLv1 of the incompatibilities; in fact, our research into its history indicates the GPLv2-incompatibility was Sun's design choice. At the time, Sun's apparent goal was to draw developers away from GNU and Linux development into Solaris. Not only did Sun not want code from GNU and Linux in Solaris, more importantly, Sun did not want technological advantages from Solaris' kernel to appear in Linux.

That is a conspiracy theory. The reason was the code was for OpenSolaris as a whole ZFS being just a part of it and Sun required closed source drivers in Solaris. Non optional. They could NEVER have used the GPL for Solaris. Frankly the GPL is the wrong model for open source and causes nothing but strife.. this is all open code we are talking about and Bryan is right.. At one point the GPL might have been needed but we are pissing on our victory parade by squabbling over details like this. We need to make the best systems we can and we spend way way too much time having lawyers argue what driver can and can not be shipped in Linux. For this I think FreeBSD has a better licence model. They didn't for a time but companies know that contributing upstream is less work than stealing code and trying to maintain huge patches now.